He uses EQ to verify his measurements. He doesn't just pick his favorite measurement. This isn't hard to understand.
Anyway, without new information there'll just be more talking in circles at this point.
He uses EQ to verify his measurements. He doesn't just pick his favorite measurement. This isn't hard to understand.
Anyway, without new information there'll just be more talking in circles at this point.
I think the idea is to 1. Show the distortion in low frequencies as explained a few posts ago https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...v2-review-headphone.19291/page-14#post-635913The deviations from neutral are not that bad honestly other than that 6K peak. I'm also confused why anyone would measure distortion at such high levels. There is no real world use case scenario for 114 dB. At 94 distortion is actually fairly low and wouldn't predict anything about sound quality. I would say that treble measurements are particularly hard to interpret, especially above 8K.
Really? What is your reference for "fairly low?" Distortion there at 94 dB ranges from 4 to 6% in mid to high frequencies. Here it is in absolute scale:At 94 distortion is actually fairly low and wouldn't predict anything about sound quality.
Which is still a flat plat. He has actually built one-half of the fixture I am using:That is not his current rig. The above is an IEC coupler and a pinnae from a miniDSP EARS. Right now he uses an actual GRAS system.
View attachment 105894
He has gone this way for good reason though. He says that he needs the fixture to be portable because he measures headphones at audio shops so he needs portability. And also saving in cost (he spent a bit more than half the cost of my fixture).
I really don't know. I remember being totally shocked the first time I asked how much they cost. It is a high cost sales channel (I evaluated a unit for almost 3 months before buying one). But still, I can't figure out how it all adds up.Can I ask what exactly about these measurement products makes them so expensive? Is it the microphones? Or the way the device is shaped to represent a human ear?
People do have different sized heads tho. You yourself proved this by saying that you were never able to get full bass extension with your Stax after 30 years of ownership and that they just "hang there" like speakers, when me and many people I know have no trouble achieving this. I think headphone measurements in optimal conditions should be provided, and additional measurements to show in what ways it can change if, for example, your head is a different size or you wear glasses.He can make the tension anything he wants, deviating from how the headphone would potentially get used and showing more bass than is what is perceived.
Can I ask what exactly about these measurement products makes them so expensive? Is it the microphones? Or the way the device is shaped to represent a human ear?
Nope. You have lost the plot there. We use standardized measurements in both research and engineering so that the work can be replicated. Such research has led us to preference curves we use in our measurements. If you use a different setup, then you invalidate years of controlled testing that led to development of such preference curves. And manufacturers could not use our data to trace problems in their designs.People do have different sized heads tho. You yourself proved this by saying that you were never able to get full bass extension with your Stax after 30 years of ownership and that they just "hang there" like speakers, when me and many people I know have no trouble achieving this. I think headphone measurements in optimal conditions should be provided, and additional measurements to show in what ways it can change if, for example, your head is a different size or you wear glasses.
Can I ask what exactly about these measurement products makes them so expensive? Is it the microphones? Or the way the device is shaped to represent a human ear?
Can I ask what exactly about these measurement products makes them so expensive? Is it the microphones? Or the way the device is shaped to represent a human ear?
To put things in perspective, the cost of this device to the company is probably less than 1 month salary + benefits of the employee using it.Can I ask what exactly about these measurement products makes them so expensive? Is it the microphones? Or the way the device is shaped to represent a human ear?
Nope. You have lost the plot there. We use standardized measurements in both research and engineering so that the work can be replicated. Such research has led us to preference curves we use in our measurements. If you use a different setup, then you invalidate years of controlled testing that led to development of such preference curves. And manufacturers could not use our data to trace problems in their designs.
As to Stax, you seem to not read what I write. I said that the measurements matched my use in that both showed lack of bass. And that forcing them to stick to the fixture produces measurements that don't match my real life experience with that identical headphone. What you as a random dude say about that is neither here, nor there. Maybe you have no idea with good sub-bass is. It is not like you have any qualifications that would give us any hope that your assessments are correct. If we were to believe people like you, then we would not bother doing any testing or measurements. Indeed I do these reviews so that we are free of listening to random people online.
At what point is it okay to stop playing nice and be more blunt? The same two or three people keep saying the same thing and trying to make the same point over and over again. I'm surprised he's had this much patience. I would have told them to piss off long ago.As much as I love and respect this forum, I believe the aggression in this reply is a bit unwarranted. While I don't agree with Degru's other replies (or the tone of them, for that matter), I think what he is saying here, while maybe not feasible for you to do (time constraints and all that), is not a bad point overall.
Perhaps (and again, it might not be feasible for you to implement this), other "standardized fixtures" could be built to represent different measurement contexts. This would give us more useful information to work with and can help consumers come to a more informed conclusion about whether or not the headphone is right for them.
According to rTings.com numbers even the cheap Superlux 668B sounds better.I wonder how many (probably the majority!) of the ultra-high expensive HP presented on specialized journals have the same horrible distortion and frequency response combination! So far it seems the best bet for sound quality seems to be the old Sennheiser HD-650. Thank you for adding this Emperor's New Clothes realistic perspective on one of the idols of absolute sound.
At what point is it okay to stop playing nice and be more blunt? The same two or three people keep saying the same thing and trying to make the same point over and over again. I'm surprised he's had this much patience. I would have told them to piss off long ago.
This is crinacle’s rig.
View attachment 105893
Not if you knew he is cutting and pasting my answers in this thread elsewhere and ridiculing us for it.As much as I love and respect this forum, I believe the aggression in this reply is a bit unwarranted.
I provided a measurement of my Stax on my head with flat bass extension to below 20hz, which you dismissed because it is not on a proper measurement rig. I often listen to things like Lorn on my 404LE, which has fundamentals at 35hz and would sound completely wrong if the bass response was as you described. I also get very satisfying bass on tracks such as Life by Runhild Gammelsæter, which has a 25hz rumble.Maybe you have no idea with good sub-bass is.
Some readers are either not registering this, not understanding it, or don't like it.